Subject: Re: Distributed Registry Proposal Approach
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:38:53 -0700, Phil Zimmerman wrote: >1) What is the business need for introducing a distributed registry >architecture? To find anyone anywhere in order to do business. For 17 months now have we told the world that his can be done by doing a single query. In other words, if Mary has Chocolate Shop and her information is stored in her Software provider's ebXML compliant register, her potential customers don't need who her provider is to find her. Instead they can query the system via any available entry point. >2) What problem/problems is/are being addressed? That of having to know more than that there maybe chocolate shops out there that one can do ebXML with. Without it I can only do business with those parties I know. >3) What group is being optimized for? The registry maintainers? The users? ebXML! In particular R&R. This requirement has been known since the beginning. At your last meeting in Vancouver the suggestion was made again by the StC that UDDI is a possible solution. You are running out of time! By doing so ebXML is about to fail. I strongly suggest that you stop debating and listen to what Mike said. The StC made that point to Scott at this weeks call. It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing, which will unacceptable. On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:22:52 -0600, Mike Rawlins wrote: >Proposal: For phase 1 use UDDI as the registry of registries (I am even >more amazed to find myself agreeing with Klaus!). This, to me, has the >best chance of satisfying your highest priority constraint. It also has >marketing/mindshare advantages which, while they aren't strictly >speaking technical constraints, certainly are important. Regards, Klaus -- Klaus-Dieter Naujok ebXML & TMWG Chair Netfish Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Technology Officer
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC